Klipshorn OLD Vs. NEW

[Deang]

I don't know what happened through the early 90s, but what you are saying kind of makes sense. It seems the K55V was a much better driver than the K55M. My initial post regarding the 1985 year was based on several posts by Dennis (DJK) at the Asylum. This was the year he preferred, so I recommend it based primarily on that. I could be wrong, but I think the K55V was an Atlas, and later was Electrovoice. Can anyone confirm if I'm right or wrong here?

I almost wish I would have bought some older Klipschorns, if only to have something to try out different filters. I may have to at least track down some LaScalas to do this. What I do find interesting is that those using low powered triode amps almost universally prefer the Type A, while those using solid state and UL or Pentode PP -- prefer the Type AA, and other newer networks. I still maintain that complexity in a circuit does not necessarily make it inferior or less musical.

[HDBRbuilder]

JMON,

In no way was I saying that all the K-horns built in a particular year are worse than ones built in any other year...based upon quality of build. I was referring to the ODDS of getting one that either had un-noticed problems, or had to have a factory repair or correction made to it prior to leaving the plant. Generally speaking, the company has done quite well over the years in ensuring that nothing substandard from the Heritage line leaves the plant...IOW...errors in quality are most often caught prior to that point. BUT...my point is that there were ALWAYS a handful of "problem-children" that made it to a dealer or customer before a problem was discovered in build quality....and that in certain years, when the lower mid-management in one or more departments was more concerned with numbers produced than in quality of workmanship, there was naturally a greater possibility that more unnoticed bad builds made it out the door.

Bois'd Arc was an excellent builder...in anything he built...he took PRIDE in what he did! On the other hand, there are always a few folks who only show up for a paycheck and are more concerned in meeting their quotas than in doing a good job...this fact is compounded when the foreman of a section is ALSO more concerned with numbers than quality.

In all likelihood, the vast majority of speakers that made it out the door during ANY year were of adequate build quality...since problems generally were caught before that point, and corrected. I just prefer years in which the speakers were built with BETTER than "adequate" quality by EXPERIENCED builders who took great pride in their work and who were able to meet or exceed quota expectations while still putting maximum quality into their work.

As in all things manufactured, there are certain minimum standards that have to be met for a product to pass inspection. BUT, that does NOT dictate that the MINIMUM standards are as far as an employee should take things when involved in the manufacture of that product. I am a firm believer in not only meeting minimum standards but in EXCEEDING those standards of quality to the best of one's ability. Sadly, there are many who do not see things as I see them!

IOW, if one chooses to take up a craft, he/she should ACT and PERFORM like a CRAFTSMAN, not like a clock-puncher!

In all likelihood, your K-horns are just fine!

[Guy Landau]

I never heared my Khorns with type A, with a SET amp.

All of my amps were PP ranging from 7.5 watt (modified Leak TL10's) to 65 watt, class A, Scott 265A and a 100 watt EAR 509. I've also tried a SS, Pathos Classic ones, a Luxman 5L12 and a 250 WPC, Marantz 2500 receiver. I've tried all of them (plus many other tube amps) with the type A crossover with no damage to the tweeters.

[fini]

I think Klipschorns will sound just dandy in that Lincoln. Make sure you get 'em in the corners.

[3dzapper]

Dean,

It seems rather those who prefer their music mellow and softer prefer the type A and those who like it faster and louder prefer the AA. The A seemed to me to get shriller at high rock volumes so I went back to AA config, then AA with the Bridge Cap. I've still got ALKs in now while I procrastinate on rebuilding my AAs. I may never finish the AAs, the ALKs are so good.

What fini, no bookshelves?

Rick

[tgourlie]

Thanks for all of the responses so far! For the record, I will be buying a used Lincoln LS for around $20,000 not a New new one, but new compared to the vehicles I had been driving. Thanks for all the welcomes to the chicago are! Although I have not moved there yet, soon enough I will be there. I'll finally be away from all these damn cheeseheads!!!

Ok the k-horns, I have heard of all of these crossover types before, but I never really gave them attention since I don't have k-horns. I believe my Heresy II's have type "EE." They were made in 87 or 88 (too lazy to check right now). Can someone give me a quick rundown of the types? I have the basic electronics knowledge to understand them, I just don't know the differences. Also, what year did current drivers start showing up in the k-horns. What year did the K-77-F and the k-55-X go into production? Are they significantly better than years past? I believe the K-33-E is standard throughout correct (besides the 60's versions).

Could it be that the "A" Network, in an 88-89 horn, would out-perform a 2004 k-horn? And what would cost $5,000 in getting the "same" performance as a 2004?

The way I look at it, if a better sound can be produced from an older k-horn with an updated ALK network, then klipsch needs to tighten up the supply chain and look into some different pricing strategies for the 2004 line. Although if Klipsch doesn't turn a high profit on the 2004's, (and they are in it for the money and not in it to provide the flagship product that made the compnay what it is today) then the 2004 line is dropped and the price of a used k-horn goes up to $6,750. Then the consumer is really in a bind. AHHH the double edged sword of business today!

What up?

[HDBRbuilder]

BTW...my personal preferencce for K-horns has far less to do with drivers and crossover networks than it has to do with quality of build and materials used in the build. My preference for factory-made K-horns is for those built between around mid-1977 to around mid-1982. Here is why:

1. The builders at that time generally had quite a few years of experience and took great pride in what they built...true craftsmen! The rest of the workers in the wood shop were also craftsmen...and so was the foreman...who was a stickler for excellence!

2. At the beginning of that time period is about when the baltic birch replaced the previously-used marine-grade fir plywood for most of the cabinet construction, excluding the finely-veneered panels. This is important because not only was that baltic birch stiffer, creating a more solid cabinet structure in the K-horns than the previously-used marine grade fir, BUT it was relatively NEW to our shores. And the U.S.S.R. was sending the absolute BEST they produced here in order to grab a share of the plywood market by making a name for themselves in the high quality of the product they sold here early on! Pretty simple!

3. I prefer GOOD QUALITY solid lumbercore plywood over MDF or regular plywood for a finely-veneered panel medium. During those years, the quality of that lumbercore was still excellent for the most part...very solid stuff...and when cross-cutting it you RARELY saw ANY KIND OF VOID or veneer separation show up!

4. Veneers were better. They were thicker, allowing for easier repairs or refinishing. There was MUCH more care taken by the manufacturers to perfectly match-up the book matches of the veneers on the sheets of lumbercore plywood. Generally speaking the boards the veneer slices were taken from were wider, so that there were fewer SEPARATE sheets applied to a panel...which gives it, IMHO, a more aesthetic appeal...IOW it just LOOKS BETTER that way! And, finally, the grain patterns in those veneers were more often more eye-catching with more figure than similar panels found today. One other point...you could get a WIDER VARIETY of veneers then, because we hadn't banned import of some of those woods yet and availability was better leading to better figure IN those veneers!

I am not a major fan of the K-77 OVER the K-77M, or vice versa, so that is a non-issue with me...either one will work for me! BUT, I definitely prefer the K-55V over the K55-M driver...again a personal taste thing. I like the K-33-E just fine...it does a great job driving that folded horn. I have no major preference of the A over the AA or vice versa, BUT I DO have a preference of either of those in good condition(functioning like new) over the AK or AL networks when combined with my preferred drivers. I prefer the K-400 mid-horn lens over the K-401. Even with its occassional tendency to "ring", if that should happen, then the problem is easily solved.

SO, that is why I prefer FACTORY-BUILT K-horns from those years. That being said, I would still closely check out a pair from that time frame before considering a purchase, for a number of reasons: to ensure everything was working properly; to ensure the OBSERVABLE build quality met MY standards; to ensure that if any repairs were needed, I could easily accomplish them; and FINALLY, but NOT THE LEAST IMPORTANT REASON, I would want to see WHO built it! I knew ALL the builders during those years, and there are one or two I would rather NOT to have built what I would purchase. After all, if I am gonna spend MY MONEY on somebody else's craftsmanship, I want it to be from a CRAFTSMAN!

One more thing...although I may someday purchase a nice pair of K-horns meeting the above criteria from that time period, I am MUCH more likely to just build my own...that way I can be as picky as I want to be!

[tgourlie]

Believe it or not Fini but I thought of it. I have been into car audio for some time now. Image dynamics made some horns for automotive use. I saw a picture of it the other day and it sparked my creative side. i thought of taking some heresy's and mounting the tweets where the dash meets the door and the mid's under the glove compartment like the image dynamics. I would use some Rockford Fosgate Power 6 1/2's and Rockford Fosgate punch 5 1/4's in the door, then putting the low's in the back deck, and using some Vega series 12's in a huge ported box in the trunk for 50hz and below. Ahh how the mind will wonder!

[fini]

Andy,

My recently acquired KB-WO's are serial #'s 11R855 and 856. That makes them 77's. 11th week?

I know on the Cornwalls, the builder's initials are stamped into the plywood edge. Are there similar marks on the Khorns, and if so, where are they? I wanna know if these are worth keeping.

[Guy Landau]

----------------

On 4/4/2004 11:30:12 PM fini wrote:

Andy,

My recently acquired KB-WO's are serial #'s 11R855 and 856. That makes them 77's. 11th week?

I know on the Cornwalls, the builder's initials are stamped into the plywood edge. Are there similar marks on the Khorns, and if so, where are they? I wanna know if these are worth keeping.

----------------

Fini,

The recommended ones were manufactured from the 12th week. It is recommended that you throw these POJ away . Don't forget to let me know where they are. Hell, I might even help you carry them to that junk yard.

[fini]

----------------

On 4/4/2004 11:43:24 PM Guy Landau wrote:

Fini,

The recommended ones were manufactured from the 12th week.

----------------

D'OH!

[Piranha]

I sure hope my 76 LaScalas were built with some integrity and pride in constructing.

----------------

On 4/4/2004 8:34:42 PM HDBRbuilder wrote:

1985? THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A GOOD YEAR FOR K-HORNS?? Hmmm...lemme see...Bois'd Arc started building them around early 1982, and IF HE BUILT the ones from 1985, he would have had about two-three years experience (but only a portion of those years would have been devoted to K-horn construction, alone)...that is good enough I guess...but if anybody else was the builder in 1985, he/she likely had less than 6 months building experience that year...and...of course...all of the old hands at building them who had ten or more years experience were gone by 1983...most were gone BEFORE 1981...so...if you want to relate consistency of quality of BUILD...I wouldn't exactly say 1985 was anywhere NEAR a good year...

As for some of the components used in them in 1985...that is debatable too!

The good year for a K-horn should be based on a combination of three things...expected QUALITY of build would be MOST important, since that is where the real expense lays....next would be components used...since that is where the middle expense lays...then type and/or consistency of quality of materials used in cabinet construction. 1985 does not top-out on any of these lists!

I am not saying that a K-horn built by Bois'd Arc would be a bad one...quite the opposite!!...but he was NOT the only builder in 1985...he just was the only builder at that time who had any REAL experience who was doing it that year!!

BTW...I also know who the foreman in the woodshop was that year...and the degree to which a foreman places quality of build in relation to numbers produced has A LOT to do with my perception of the odds of getting a well-built cabinet!! That particular foreman had a LOT of experience in the wood shop, but he was a numbers man...NOT a quality man! He was also the foreman the last couple of years I worked there and we butted heads quite often...especially when he said things like..."don't waste time getting that miter knocked out perfectly evenly on that bowed panel...they can take care of the overhang in the sanding room...and if they sand through the veneer trying to do it, we can just paint it black and ship it out!" It is one thing to tell me that if I am not making an expected quota, but quite another to tell me that when I am exceeding my expected quota by 50% or more daily!! ESPECIALLY when the veneer is something like rosewood on a special order...and it will only take me two seconds to accomplish the job at hand! But, then again, he ran the shop the same way he had built speakers when he was a builder...half-assed, at best!

----------------

[Piranha]

I hope my 76 LaScalas were built with some integrity and pride in constructing.

----------------

On 4/4/2004 8:34:42 PM HDBRbuilder wrote:

1985? THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A GOOD YEAR FOR K-HORNS?? Hmmm...lemme see...Bois'd Arc started building them around early 1982, and IF HE BUILT the ones from 1985, he would have had about two-three years experience (but only a portion of those years would have been devoted to K-horn construction, alone)...that is good enough I guess...but if anybody else was the builder in 1985, he/she likely had less than 6 months building experience that year...and...of course...all of the old hands at building them who had ten or more years experience were gone by 1983...most were gone BEFORE 1981...so...if you want to relate consistency of quality of BUILD...I wouldn't exactly say 1985 was anywhere NEAR a good year...

As for some of the components used in them in 1985...that is debatable too!

The good year for a K-horn should be based on a combination of three things...expected QUALITY of build would be MOST important, since that is where the real expense lays....next would be components used...since that is where the middle expense lays...then type and/or consistency of quality of materials used in cabinet construction. 1985 does not top-out on any of these lists!

I am not saying that a K-horn built by Bois'd Arc would be a bad one...quite the opposite!!...but he was NOT the only builder in 1985...he just was the only builder at that time who had any REAL experience who was doing it that year!!

BTW...I also know who the foreman in the woodshop was that year...and the degree to which a foreman places quality of build in relation to numbers produced has A LOT to do with my perception of the odds of getting a well-built cabinet!! That particular foreman had a LOT of experience in the wood shop, but he was a numbers man...NOT a quality man! He was also the foreman the last couple of years I worked there and we butted heads quite often...especially when he said things like..."don't waste time getting that miter knocked out perfectly evenly on that bowed panel...they can take care of the overhang in the sanding room...and if they sand through the veneer trying to do it, we can just paint it black and ship it out!" It is one thing to tell me that if I am not making an expected quota, but quite another to tell me that when I am exceeding my expected quota by 50% or more daily!! ESPECIALLY when the veneer is something like rosewood on a special order...and it will only take me two seconds to accomplish the job at hand! But, then again, he ran the shop the same way he had built speakers when he was a builder...half-assed, at best!

----------------

[tillmbil]

Hey HDBR - I have 1974 K-Horn's, can you give me some insoght as to the build quality? What crossovers do they have and do they have the K-V55?

[HDBRbuilder]

If they were built before 1977, then they were built by experienced builders...my point about PRE-1977 K-HORNS, was that I prefer the ones built using baltic birch panels due to the extra rigidity of the cabinets that medium supplies...it had nothing to do with the build quality in relation to the builders, themselves.

Pre-1977, most of the panels used in the bass bin construction were of FIR marine-grade plywood, which is fine, but not as stiff as baltic birch is. The one asset that fir has OVER baltic birch is that on the edge grain (exposed plys), it more readily soaks glue into its fibers, thereby giving a POSSIBILITY of a tighter glue bond at those junctions as compared to those same junctions for baltic birch...it necessitates using a bit more glue to make up for what is "sucked into" the fibers there. The fir also required a bit more drying time for that glue, since more of the glue was used there.

Baltic birch on its end plys has less wood and more glue due to the number of plys in it, so it does not take as much glue nor does it take as much time for glue set-up to occur at those junctions...BUT it also requires the builder to lay out a perfect glue line at those junctions to ensure the bond is strong enough, since there is less fiber for the glue to bond with. So, it is necessary for the builder to pay more attention to detail using baltic birch. That kind of attention is gained with EXPERIENCE!

Another point I was trying to make is that the foreman of that era and prior to that era was a stickler for perfection, so he was constantly going around and spot-checking the work of the builders to ensure it met his high standards. So, I would personally have no or few worries about cabinet build quality for K-horns prior to 1982-83. It was AFTER this time that the loss of the majority of the old hands and the ascession of one particular foreman may have adversely affected K-HORN build quality.

As for LaScalas or any of the other cabinets, it is really not that big of an issue. LaScala build is with 3/4" cabinet grade birch plywood, so there is lots more glue surface available on end ply surfaces than there is on 1/2" plywood construction as seen in most of the K-horn bass bin. It is easier to ensure good solid bonds on the LaScala because every junction of the plywood is readily accessible to wipe extra glue into the joint immediately after securing that pre-glued joint with the fasteners. On K-horns, there are many points where only ONE SIDE of a junction can be observed to ensure proper glue squeeze-out and wiping glue into that joint can be done, therefore it is strictly up to the reliance on experience of the builder to ensure the joint is properly secured.

One other note...the foreman I mentioned as having not been quality-minded was a builder before becoming foreman, but HIS work was also heavily scrutinized by the previous foreman...who often chastised him and had him make necessary corrections during the build process.

Harry was one helluva foreman...he was very picky! He had a demeanor that allowed for a learning curve for those new employees who were hired into the wood shop, provided those employees were willing to learn to build to his high standards. He had an eye for potential in an employee...normally being able to size-up whether a new employee had the makings of a craftsman or not early on. If that new employee did NOT have those attributes, he was sent elsewhere fairly rapidly. Unfortunately, Harry stepped back to being the senior builder due to health reasons. When that happened, around 1979, he recommended that TWO builders jointly assume the foreman role in his place. Those two guys (Charles and Ronnie) were also good foremen, but they left for greener pastures around 1981-82.

That is when the foreman I have mentioned (no name here, to protect the guilty) took over and quality of build was superceded as the priority by numbers built. In all fairness to that foreman, I have to reiterate that all but four builders in the wood shop at that time were new people, and the powers that be wanted to maintain the previous high production rate from the time when all the builders were very experienced, so it was difficult to be in a push-pull situation which required the numbers needed be completed without hiring additional employees...so in order to retain his job, he had to produce those numbers, even if it meant quality had to suffer somewhat!

He spent lots of time running around giving the new guys a hard time over either the numbers they were building or over the quality of their work...or BOTH! It seems that he would notice that his harangues would be wearing their nerves thin, so when he got stressed, instead of giving a hard time to ONLY those whose work was the problem, he would occassionally feel the need to give builders who were doing just fine a bit of harangue, too!

When he would come over and give ME a hard time, for no reason other than that everybody else already had an overdose of his crap, I would stand up to him and give it right back to him! I am still that way! If I am doing quality work and producing in excess of what is expected, then I don't feel I need to take any unnecessary crap from anybody! Needless to say, he fealt I was being insubordinate when he would come over and lay into me and my response would be "Why don't you just take your happy arse somewhere where your crap is needed, or...better yet...go build one of those B/K's we are behind in orders on! I do quality work and I have a quota to meet and your bothering me isn't helping any!" He would shut up, stand there fuming for a minute or so while he glared at me, then leave. At least he left!! My helpers would crack-up..and ask me if I was worried about him firing me. I would answer "No big deal...who is gonna build all these cabinets if he fires me? HE can't do it, and good luck to him in finding anybody else around here to do it! Look around...everybody in this shop is behind on orders...but us! And when we run out of room for OUR completed cabinets waiting for sanding, guess who is gonna help those builders falling behind to catch-up??"

I lived in the REAL WORLD! Nobody had to tell me what needed doing when I was forced to stop MY production due to lack of storage space...I constantly kept my eye on the situation and went where help was most needed whenever that happened! Self-starters are few and far between in the manufacturing business!

[Frzninvt]

I totally disagree with the "having to spend $5K to get them to the 2003/2004 Khorn level" that is absolute nonsense. I would put my pair from '88 up against the 2003/2004 offerings anyday. The changes to the crossover were prompted by the change in drivers since they had to source them elsewhere. They are not going to sound that drastically different at all, I am certain only finely tuned ears would pick up the differences. I got mine for $1250 by the way and have invested around $200 to update the crossover to AK-3 equivalents using better quality components. So last time I looked $1450 was less than $7500, I don't think I would hear $6050 worth of improvements by buying 2004 Khorns.

[j-malotky]

Hey Todd

Let me get this streight, you are going to be in an appartment.... With KHORNS... You realize they vibrate the walls like no other speaker. Are you even going to have two good corners to put them in?

You seriously may want to consider going with some Cornwalls, Chorus or Fortes until you get a house.

I am in Milwaukee, we have emailed in the past. You can come over any time and hear my '83 ALKed Khorns before you move south of the border.

JM

[tgourlie]

I would be renting a house with 2 of my friends. I have already explained to them that if possible the k-horns would get their own room.

What would be the difference between these ALK networks I hear so much about and the AK-3 and AK-4? Is their any method to the naming of these beasts?

[ben.]

The ALK are not made by Klipsch, but by Al Klappenburger (sorry if I mispelled your name, Al).

I believe he has a new design out, as well.

[sheltie dave]

Todd, for someone who is getting set up in your first job out of college, don't worry about getting a set of ALK networks. They really are not needed unless you will be running the Khorns with a tube amp. The most important thing is to get yourself out of debt if you have any college loans. The fastest way to create wealth is to be without any major debt!

If you have a burning desire to get a set of ALKs, talk to Al. He will probably tell you the get out of debt spiel as well, then tell you to learn to build them yourself to save money, and as a third option, buy them built from Al. They are great crossovers.